The ultimate in CO2 reduction

[Skybird]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6909046.ece

Meine Fresse, bin ich in dieser Welt denn nur noch von Bekloppten umgeben... :dead:

[VipertheSniper]

The link doesn't work for me, only get an error 404

[AVGWarhawk]

Carbon Tax. Carbon Accounts. It is getting ridiculas. Soon we will be taxed on flatuence. :doh:

[SteamWake]

Carbon Tax. Carbon Accounts. It is getting ridiculas. Soon we will be taxed on flatuence. :doh:

Heh it may already be in there if your a cow :haha:

[AVGWarhawk]

Heh it may already be in there if your a cow :haha:

Yeah, the cows days are number. Truly just wth is the world coming too? Anything to get another dime out of the common man....does not matter what country.

[Skybird]

The link doesn't work for me, only get an error 404

Just for you. ;)

Carbon ration account for all proposed by Environment Agency

If people used up their yearly ration early, they would have to buy extra from those who had not used their full allowance

Ben Webster, Environment Editor


div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited {color:#06c;} Everyone should be given an annual carbon ration and face financial penalties if they exceed it, under a proposal by the Environment Agency.
Lord Smith of Finsbury, the agency’s chairman, will say today that rationing is the fairest and most effective way of meeting Britain’s legally binding targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
People would be given a “carbon account” and a unique number that they would have to submit when making purchases of carbon-intensive items such as petrol, electricity or airline tickets. As with a bank account, people would receive statements showing the carbon weight of each purchase and how much of their ration remained.
If they used up their ration within a year, they would have to buy extra credits from those who had not used their full allowance.
Lord Smith, who was Culture Secretary in Tony Blair’s Government, believes that the system would encourage people to think about the carbon cost of their purchases as well as reward those who lived frugally and did little travelling, who could make a significant profit from selling their unused credits.
Speaking at the agency’s annual conference in London, Lord Smith will say that carbon rationing would help people to “judge how they want to develop their own quality of life in a sustainable way”.
He believes that rationing would be fairer than taxing carbon because extra taxes could make certain activities, such as flying, too expensive for people on low incomes. If everyone had an equal free carbon allowance, the basic cost of flying would remain cheap but those who flew a lot would quickly use up their ration and have to purchase extra carbon credits for each additional flight.
Under the Climate Change Act, Britain is obliged to cut its emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050. This means annual CO2 emissions per person will have to fall from about 9 tonnes to only 2 tonnes.
Rationing would make it much easier to meet the target because the total amount of permitted emissions under the Act would simply be divided by the size of population.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published a feasibility study last year which found that rationing was technically feasible and could be effective in cutting emissions.
Defra said at the time: “The study indicates that personal carbon trading has potential to engage individuals in taking action to combat climate change.” However, it said that the idea was “ahead of its time” and would be very expensive to implement.
The statement concluded: “The Government remains interested in the concept of personal carbon trading and, although it will not be continuing its research programme at this stage, it will monitor the wealth of research focusing on this area and may introduce personal carbon trading if the value of carbon savings and cost implications change.”
The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee called on the Government last year to resume research on a rationing scheme and to be “courageous” in seeking to overcome likely public hostility to the idea.
It said in a report: “Opposition to personal carbon trading could be reduced if the public could be convinced of three things. First, that it is absolutely essential to reduce emissions; second, that this can only be achieved if individuals take personal responsibility for reducing their own emissions; and third, that personal carbon trading is a fairer and more effective way of reducing personal emissions than alternatives such as higher taxes.” The committee concluded: “Widespread public acceptance, while desirable, should not be a pre-condition for a personal carbon trading scheme; the need to reduce emissions is simply too urgent.”
David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, called for a “thought experiment” on carbon rationing when he was Environment Secretary in 2006.


What's next? Taxes on breathing air? Every stroke of breath beyond 10 per minute getting additionally penalty-taxed? A CO2 status indication of a person in his ID papers?

[papa_smurf]

Well, we could keep the cows - just get rid of cars. Forget Top Gear, introducing "Top Steer!"

[Respenus]

You know, I'm slightly divided as far as carbon rations are concerned. Although though carbon emission trading is considered a better alternative to carbon rations, they still have their merit.

It is not without its own problems. The first thing is of course government control. Who will decide the amount of rations, will they just cut us off right away, or will they slowly decrease as we slowly adapt to the new environment? How will they decide how much each thing, object, item costs in carbon rations? Fuel is one thing, what about food or clothing? Even electricity is troublesome, as you can't really measure where someone bought their electricity, either making it worth zero in areas with only renewable sources, or very high in old industrial areas. Who then decides to find the golden centre? While I for one don't really mind a centralised state, this might just be going a tad too far as far as control is concerned.

Oh, and how about the rich/poor divide? The rich find a few homeless or less well off people and bang, they're right back at 9M, while others are left to live in the gutter. Which once again brings up my question of how the hell can Labour call itself "socialist", while their politics are Thatcherist (more or less)

What bothers me most is that we just wish to solve the symptoms of a problem, not the problem itself. The first thing is the technology. If more money were invested in green R&D and oil companies taxed more without increasing the fuel price (a levy on company profits while forbidding major price increase), we could easily lower our CO2 energy output to almost zero, considering that we could get all our power from the sun. There are plenty of desserts our there, only Tesla died a few years too soon.

The second one is human population. No matter how much you limit CO2 output, you're going to have a billion more people around the world trying to get to your level. While I don't see that as a problem, I see the number of people trying to do it a problem. Skybird recently mentioned a number of people the while world could support if everyone lived western lifestyles. 500M to maybe, maybe 1B. Time to go digging some graves people. :yeah:

[August]

The end game of carbon rationing.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ARTxiBaLfnc/SGTsXqyT54I/AAAAAAAABcM/BpAN6-zkEBA/s400/totalrecall2.jpg

[Skybird]

the problem i have with this news, Repenus, is not the carbon trading scheme in principal, althigz experiences in the EU show that it is very very far from the service record it was thought it would produce, it is indeed quite ineffective for a number of reasons that already are anchored int he vvery way it was designed to be managed.

Then problem I have is that here they now want to create carbon schemes not on companies, countries or comparable entities, but on the single individual private person, with all the implications of that. I using some imaginative thought on the very idea, it is hilarious. It is a typical PC poltical populism and hectic acivism without thoroughly thinking about whether or not it will do what is claimed it will do. Add it tighhtens bureaucratic control over the individual and subjugating it to the overall tyranny that is spreading in the name of growing EU democracy.

Now that the Lisbon dicates has passed, imemdiately the EU commission starts top claim even more gioths and powers for itself. They now want to tax European people (household, private persons) directly, as if the EU is a legitimate government and sovereign state in itself. That way they want to bypass oposition by local governments that threaten to weaken the commission by withholding payments.

"This is how liberty dies - with thundering applaus." (Princess Amidala, Star Wars).